There are currently two different linguistically-based approaches to universals in second language acquisition, one stemming from typological universals (Greenberg, 1966) and the other from Chomskyan Universal Grammar. Associated with each approach is a concept of markedness. Typologists define markedness implicationally; current theories of language learnability define markedness in terms of the Subset Principle. Although coming from very different perspectives, these two definitions of markedness coincide in a number of predictions they make for L1 and L2 acquisition. Similarities and differences between these two approaches to markedness and acquisition are discussed in this paper.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berwick, R.1985: The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Brown, R. and Hanlon, C.1970: Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R., editor, Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.
3.
Chomsky, N.1981: Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
4.
Eckman, F.1985: The markedness differential hypothesis: theory and applications . In Wheatley, B. et al., editors, Current approaches to second language acquisition , Bloomington : Indiana University Linguistics Club.
5.
Finer, D. and Broselow, E.1986: Second language acquisition of reflexive-binding . Proceedings of NELS16: 154-68. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Students Association.
6.
Gass, S.1979: Language transfer and universal grammatical relations . Language Learning29: 327-44.
7.
Greenberg, J.1966: Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J., editor, Universals of language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Hawkins, J.1987: Implicational universals as predictors of language acquisition . Linguistics25: 453-73.
9.
— 1988: On generative and typological approaches to universal grammar. Lingua74: 85-100.
10.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R. and Schneiderman, M.1984: Brown and Hanlon revisited: mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language11: 81-88.
11.
Hyams, N.1986: Language acquisition and the theory of parameters . Dordrecht: Reidel.
12.
Hyltenstam, K.1987: Markedness, language universals, language typology and second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. , editor, First and second language acquisition processes , Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
13.
Jakobson, R.1968: Child language, aphasia and phonological universals . The Hague: Mouton.
14.
Koopman, H.1984: The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht : Foris.
15.
Manzini, R. and Wexler, K.1987: Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry8: 413-44.
16.
Rutherford, W.1986: Grammatical theory and L2 acquisition: a brief overview . Second Language Research2: 1-15.
17.
Rutherford, W.1988. Grammatical theory and L2 acquisition: a brief overview . In Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W., editors, Linguistic theory in second language acquisition, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18.
Thomas, M.1989: The interpretation of English reflexive pronouns by non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11: 281-303.
19.
Travis, L.1984: Parameters and effects of word order variation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.
20.
Wexler, K. and Manzini, R.1987: Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. and Williams, E., editors, Parameter setting, Dordrecht: Reidel.
21.
White, L.1989: The principle of adjacency in second language acquisition: do L2 learners observe the subset principle? In Gass, S. and Schachter, J., editors, Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
